Paul's comment and the debates

Paul was explaining his view on how President Bush's foreign policy turns other nations against the United States.

He said (from ABC transcript):

"Try to visualize how we would react if they did that to us, if a country, say China, came that great distance across the ocean, and they say, 'We want you to live like us. We want you to have our economic system. We want bases on your land. We want to protect our oil.'

"Even if we do that with good intentions -- even if the Chinese did that with good intentions, we would all be together and we'd be furious."

Bedford County can relate. Note specifically the "We want you to live like us..." comment and relate it to foreigners here.

I also wonder why Paul picked China as an example, considering the increasing business tie-ins between them and the U.S.

It was interesting to watch other Republicans, especially MItt Romney, attempt to discredit Paul's views.

The debate was also a good primer on how appearance and voice inflections can make a difference.

Hillary Rodham Clinton came across as strident and sort of what I'll call a "lecturing schoolmarm" visually and audibly. She seems more reasonable when you simply read the transcript. But I'm still searching for her proclaimed 35 years of change. Years of tending to Bill don't count.

Most of them came across reasonably well to me. The two who concern me the most are Paul, whose views on foreign policy are a little skewed, and Bill Richardson, who's a little too 'nice' concerning diplomacy. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter in that respect.

And Barack Obama tended to say what he wants to do with few details of how he thinks he can make those things happen.

No candidate really stood out to me.

There's still a long way to go. It'll be interesting, to say the least, to see how things change following New Hampshire.

The candidates also seemed to be attacking each other to some extent, with a few openly complaining about it. What do the complainers expect? It's election season. Get over it.

That's right Richard.. It's good to know someone else actually reads about a candidate and their goals before making invalid assesments...

And David, I doubt very seriously Ron Paul would be lenient on foreign agressors. When asked "so you take your marching orders from Al Queda and when they tell you to get off the Arabian Peninsula you listen..." The GOP candidates laughed hysterically... But his rebuttal was simply, "NO!NO!NO! I take my marching orders from the Constitution".. and suddenly those comically laden candidates had nothing to say.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Jan 15, 2008, at 6:00 PM

pleasebenice, since you mentioned education was the most important issue for you, here is a link to Ron Paul's views on education:

Ron Paul believes that the main problem with education in our country is the federal control of schools.Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in Washington. Paul wants to eliminate the federal department of education and give local communities more control.

He also introduced a bill that would give parents a $5000 federal tax cut per child for education expenses, as well as a bill that would give teachers a $3000 tax cut.

-- Posted by Richard on Mon, Jan 14, 2008, at 3:45 PM

I've studied the transcripts of the last two GOP debates (and watched most of the one in New Hampshire.)

Two thoughts concerning Ron Paul:

1. He's a little too soft toward potential foreign aggressors.

But:

2. Does it seem to anyone else that fellow candidates, Romney in particular, are going out of their way to make him look bad?

-- Posted by David Melson on Mon, Jan 14, 2008, at 12:09 PM

And the only successful Republican I can think of is Ron Paul.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 6:21 PM

And no single president is going to change hardly any of those issues alone. If a Republican gets elected he will be facing a tough Democratic majority and in essence will be ineffective...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 3:01 PM

Agree. But if a successful Republican can become President, produce effective and innovative ideas on the BIG issues, Congress will follow suit. It won't happen over night...but they will follow.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 3:14 PM

And no single president is going to change hardly any of those issues alone. If a Republican gets elected he will be facing a tough Democratic majority and in essence will be ineffective...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 3:01 PM

Hmm, well if it's education that is your top priority you should do some party realignment. Just a small word of advice. I look forward to hearing more about many of these candidates.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 3:00 PM

This begs the question, who did you vote for in 2000 or 2004... Because I can guarantee you, people didn't do much soul searching then.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 9:59 AM

Darrick, you are correct here. I did little to no research when it came to voting in the last two elections.

I voted for Bush in both elections. In 2000, I voted for Bush strictly because he was Republican and I think Al Gore is kind of shady AND I was only 22 (I was just excited to be voting!). In 2004, I voted for Bush because I didn't believe that Kerry had what it took to be President and he's too liberal for my vote.

Now in 2008, I have different priorities. I have children and I feel I need to be more invested in the leadership of this country. My main concerns in the right candidate in 2008 are ...EDUCATION, marriage, health care, immigration and foreign policy. (In that order).

Again, I look forward to finding the right one.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 12:43 PM

And here is Ron Paul true stance on Racism...

"A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 10:04 AM

This begs the question, who did you vote for in 2000 or 2004... Because I can guarantee you, people didn't do much soul searching then.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 9:59 AM

Ok, so do you still kinda like him?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 11:07 PM

No. Not unless I can find something that is more convincing than his published denial to persuade me that he has no responsibility for this garbage. In fact, I have not found a candidate that I could enthusiastically support. I will have to do some real soul searching this election to cast a vote.

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Jan 13, 2008, at 7:50 AM

As far as your comments on conservatism, I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with that. Huckabee is a strong conservative. But if you know more than I do about him (which I'm sure you do)... please enlighten me.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 8:17 PM

Honestly couldn't tell you much about him. That's why I never mentioned him specifically. He speaks eloquently but what leadership positions has he been in? Please inform me. I have a very open mind here. Hence, I'm a Democrat who supports a Republican [Ron Paul]

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 11:09 PM

Ok, so do you still kinda like him?

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 11:07 PM

Now, as for the majority of the other Republicans running they pretty much think that, they just don't say it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 6:49 PM

As for the other candidates I don't attempt to smear them, they do that enough themselves when they preach one thing and practice a complete contradiction.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 7:41 PM

Voting record notwithstanding, the publication of the newsletter "The Ron Paul Report" (and other variations, but with his name attached) went on for 4 or more years with some really racially hateful speech and nutty conspiracy theories. You would think that during that period someone would have pointed this out to him even if he missed it. I am afraid he might be preaching one thing and practicing another.

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 11:00 PM

*He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 7:56 PM

WELL, THAT DID IT! Thompson just lost my vote.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 8:19 PM

Darrick,

I have no comment on Ron Paul other than I look forward to looking into his credentials and where he stands on the issues. I really didn't think he was a heavy hitter until the debate and this conversation (frankly, I'm still not so sure about his how strong his future is).

As far as your comments on conservatism, I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with that. Huckabee is a strong conservative. But if you know more than I do about him (which I'm sure you do)... please enlighten me.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 8:17 PM

Why NOT to vote for Thompson...

*He refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes.

*He lobbied for an abortion advocacy group before becoming a U.S. senator.

*He employed his son in a no-show job for $170,000 for four years at his political action committee after leaving office.

*As a lobbyist, he helped the attorney representing the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, to fight requests to extradite them to the U.K. to stand trial;

*His other lobbying clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian dictator who, but for a lack of oil, would have been the Hugo Chavez of the last generation;

*He skipped and is skipping the first two debates of his presidential candidacy.

*He does not know enough about the details of the Terry Schiavo case to comment.

*He is also unfamiliar with the proposal to lower soaring insurance premiums Floridians must pay for home storm coverage since the hurricanes.

*He said that Iraqis were supporting us because of al Qaeda's ban on smoking.

*He's run through three campaign managers and as many communications directors in just three months.

*He fell short in the fundraising competition, coming up with only a net of $2.8 million by the end of July.

*After leaving the Senate, he picked up his lobbying career by representing Equitas, an insurance company he helped dodge paying for asbestos/cancer claims.

*After negative publicity about his comments suggesting that Cuban immigrants were potential suicide bombers, he blamed Hillary Clinton for causing the publicity by "releasing a statement that she made trying to capitalize on something when she knew better"

*He didn't know enough about drilling in the Everglades to comment.

Among many others...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 7:56 PM

I am right about him devan, it is as simple as reading and reviewing his voting record... As for the other candidates I don't attempt to smear them, they do that enough themselves when they preach one thing and practice a complete contradiction.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 7:41 PM

I was willing to accept your support of Paul's record and give him the benefit of the doubt. What I don't think is very Godly is to smear the other Republican candidates by accusing them with what you think they think. If you can produce something to support this I will consider it just as I did your statements about Paul.

PS. I hope you are right about Paul I kind of like him too.

-- Posted by devan on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 5:46 PM

I agree 100% HorseGentler...

Thompson probably won't win because he completely embodies what the outgoing administration stands for.. and obviously if November 2006 didn't teach us something, I am not sure what will..

And devan, I am not quite sure what kind of Godly person you claim to be, but for once try to find good in someone, instead of continually finding the flaws. Or is that what Jesus would do?

And pleasebenice, if you honestly look at Ron Paul's record [in depth] and read his stances on the most crucial issues of the day you will find yourself baffled at what conservativism really means. It's not portrayed in the majority of the other candidates rhetoric or records.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Jan 12, 2008, at 3:49 PM

Anybody seen Fred Thompson lately?

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 2:50 PM

Yep, I saw him on an old Law & Order episode the other night.

Personally I hope he goes back to acting and stays out of politics, as he's much better at acting than politics.

JMHO,

William

-- Posted by HorseGentler on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 4:41 PM

Finding the perfect candidate in this election is going to be hard.

I'm strictly conservative and will vote that way. However, there's not a bumper sticker out there that I'm willing to slap on my van yet.

I want to LOVE Huckabee....He's got great Christian beliefs and I love his "hands on" approach to many things. But not sure where he is on foreign policy...not so sure he knows either.

I want to LOVE Thompson....I'm all for another Reagan administration but where the hay is he? Anybody seen Fred Thompson lately?

I want to Like Romney...but I don't.

I look forward to finding THE right one.

-- Posted by pleasebenice on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 2:50 PM

Thanks Richard and Darrick than tells, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

Now as far as your statement that the Republican candidates think like that. Are you reading minds or it there something to back that up?

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 11:39 AM

Thank you Richard, I went to his site and nearly posted that too, but I went to bed at 8:00pm, lol..

Needless to say this a smear attack on Ron Paul, and the only thing he was responsible for was not retrieving this deceptive article in time, thus unknowingly allowing it to be published in his name. Like you said though, look at the man's voting record, it is one of the most consistent and humane records in the history of congress.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Jan 11, 2008, at 7:08 AM

Ron Paul's response:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 10:28 PM

I reread the article cited above. I think it would take more that a denial to convince me that he was not culpable. Even if he didn't write the stuff quoted it reflects badly on his judgment and oversight if he let it be published under his banner. In addition, the other associations described don't appear too savory either.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 7:18 PM

Devan you are indefinitely wrong.. Ron Paul has published a statement that this letter is false and he would never and has never said such a thing. Now, as for the majority of the other Republicans running they pretty much think that, they just don't say it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 6:49 PM

My understanding of the article is that it was his newsletter and he has to take responsibility for what was published in it. Am I wrong?

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 2:02 PM

devan, Ron Paul didn't write or edit any of those newsletters. If you look at his record, you will know that those are not his views.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Jan 10, 2008, at 3:01 AM

Looks like Paul may have some views that are not so"constitutional". The title of this article is "Angry White Man".

Agreed... I vote for Ron Paul, because his foreign policy isn't a little skewed. He is a strict constitutionalist and believes in following it. His idea is the truth, we know very well that if another country came over here, wheter by boat or by air and demanded we changed our entire system we would then become the "insurgents"... It isn't so easy to call Iraqi's insurgents when you consider how you, yourself would react to foreign invaders holding million dollar military weapons over your head.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Jan 8, 2008, at 7:43 PM

Obama seemed to repeat what Hillary would say each time. Richardson and Edwards seemed to have their own words. I felt that they both handled themselves well.